I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.

But here's the most important thing. When Obama talks about the "millionaires and billionaires" and their $250,000 incomes, he's really talking about a class of highly professional people who are making a lot of money, not in the private sector but in high-level government jobs and non-profits. Nearly all of these people are concentrated on the East and West Coasts, particularly in New York, Washington and California. This is the core of Obama's support. He takes in more campaign contributions from one afternoon on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than he could raise from a month doing bus tours in the middle of the country. Why are we protecting these people? Let them experience the consequences of their misapprehensions. Maybe they'll find their inner Republican and discover they're not such enthusiastic tax levelers after all.

I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.

But here's the most important thing. When Obama talks about the "millionaires and billionaires" and their $250,000 incomes, he's really talking about a class of highly professional people who are making a lot of money, not in the private sector but in high-level government jobs and non-profits. Nearly all of these people are concentrated on the East and West Coasts, particularly in New York, Washington and California. This is the core of Obama's support. He takes in more campaign contributions from one afternoon on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than he could raise from a month doing bus tours in the middle of the country. Why are we protecting these people? Let them experience the consequences of their misapprehensions. Maybe they'll find their inner Republican and discover they're not such enthusiastic tax levelers after all.

According to the matching formula, the richest states, like New York, get a 50-50 match while the poorest, like Mississippi, get 75-25. In 49 other states, the non-federal portion comes entirely out of state treasuries. But New York has enlisted cities and counties to kick in half the state's costs on the principle that the more we spend, the more we collect from Washington. Politicians in Albany are forever proclaiming that expanding Medicaid is healthy because "every dollar we spend brings in three." As a result, New York's Medicaid expenses have ballooned to $16 billion a year, more than California and Texas put together, even though those two states both have larger populations. Cities and counties in New York are going bankrupt trying to pay the bill. A few years ago the City of Buffalo tried to disincorporate itself and join surrounding Erie County because it could no longer shoulder its Medicaid expenses.

Accommodating the political opposition is always a risky tactic. I think there are two reasons Congressional Republicans won't quickly pass Obama's jobs bill:

1) They'd be "leaving money on the table". If they negotiate over time, rather than passing a completely Democratic bill, they can achieve policy objectives without expending much political capital.

2) Passing the jobs bill would help Obama, even if (a point I don't concede) it had no measurable impact on the economy. Taxing the rich continues to be politically popular, and even if the Republicans suddenly supported it no one would mistake it for something that was more a Republican than a Democratic idea.
You say you want to force Obama to run on his record, but this would improve his record.

3) Congressional Republicans often say their first priority is to defeat Obama, but they also want to keep their own seats. Supporting the jobs bill would almost surely expose many of them to primary challenges, and would probably end up hurting their chances of reelection.

I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.

But here's the most important thing. When Obama talks about the "millionaires and billionaires" and their $250,000 incomes, he's really talking about a class of highly professional people who are making a lot of money, not in the private sector but in high-level government jobs and non-profits. Nearly all of these people are concentrated on the East and West Coasts, particularly in New York, Washington and California. This is the core of Obama's support. He takes in more campaign contributions from one afternoon on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than he could raise from a month doing bus tours in the middle of the country. Why are we protecting these people? Let them experience the consequences of their misapprehensions. Maybe they'll find their inner Republican and discover they're not such enthusiastic tax levelers after all.

First of all Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy so he can use that money for his new Job's bill--it has NOTHING to do with lowering the deficit. He needs 1/2 TRILLION dollars for more road and bridge work.You don't raise taxes on the 250K crowd--that is millions of small business people in this country--that don't work on two blocks of Lower Manhattan.

Now if you look at Obama's Solyndra investment--(cough-cough) he did create 1000 jobs at a cost of 5.6 MILLION dollars per job--that are now GONE--because the company went belly-up--costing the taxpayers of this country 535 MILLION dollars.

Knowing that the wealthy in this country account for 37% of the spending in it--means that they are a major source of economic activity--aka stimulating the economy--without costing any of us a DIME.

So who do you trust with this money? Barack Obama with more Solyndra type investments--or the rich dude who is spreading his money through-out the economy. Me--I'll take the rich dude.

Accommodating the political opposition is always a risky tactic. I think there are two reasons Congressional Republicans won't quickly pass Obama's jobs bill:

1) They'd be "leaving money on the table". If they negotiate over time, rather than passing a completely Democratic bill, they can achieve policy objectives without expending much political capital.

2) Passing the jobs bill would help Obama, even if (a point I don't concede) it had no measurable impact on the economy. Taxing the rich continues to be politically popular, and even if the Republicans suddenly supported it no one would mistake it for something that was more a Republican than a Democratic idea.
You say you want to force Obama to run on his record, but this would improve his record.

3) Congressional Republicans often say their first priority is to defeat Obama, but they also want to keep their own seats. Supporting the jobs bill would almost surely expose many of them to primary challenges, and would probably end up hurting their chances of reelection.

Click to expand...

What you said is all true, but it can be greatly simplified: They just want to fuck over the President to take back the White House.

Accommodating the political opposition is always a risky tactic. I think there are two reasons Congressional Republicans won't quickly pass Obama's jobs bill:

1) They'd be "leaving money on the table". If they negotiate over time, rather than passing a completely Democratic bill, they can achieve policy objectives without expending much political capital.

2) Passing the jobs bill would help Obama, even if (a point I don't concede) it had no measurable impact on the economy. Taxing the rich continues to be politically popular, and even if the Republicans suddenly supported it no one would mistake it for something that was more a Republican than a Democratic idea.
You say you want to force Obama to run on his record, but this would improve his record.

3) Congressional Republicans often say their first priority is to defeat Obama, but they also want to keep their own seats. Supporting the jobs bill would almost surely expose many of them to primary challenges, and would probably end up hurting their chances of reelection.

Click to expand...

Then let's all write our Reps and tell them to do it. Although yesterday when Mitch McConnell wanted to give obie doodle his vote Harry Reid had a cow...

When California slapped a surtax on the rich, the rich left. In one year over 7,000 fled the state. If the feds try it, the rich will leave. They will take ALL their money with them and all the money that money generated.

The parasitic left has a goal of destroying the economy so the US can be a third world country and it's people can be punished for doing well.

I hope the rich leave, and when this is over and the parasites have been starved out, I certainly hope they come back.

I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.

But here's the most important thing. When Obama talks about the "millionaires and billionaires" and their $250,000 incomes, he's really talking about a class of highly professional people who are making a lot of money, not in the private sector but in high-level government jobs and non-profits. Nearly all of these people are concentrated on the East and West Coasts, particularly in New York, Washington and California. This is the core of Obama's support. He takes in more campaign contributions from one afternoon on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than he could raise from a month doing bus tours in the middle of the country. Why are we protecting these people? Let them experience the consequences of their misapprehensions. Maybe they'll find their inner Republican and discover they're not such enthusiastic tax levelers after all.

First of all Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy so he can use that money for his new Job's bill--it has NOTHING to do with lowering the deficit. He needs 1/2 TRILLION dollars for more road and bridge work.You don't raise taxes on the 250K crowd--that is millions of small business people in this country--that don't work on two blocks of Lower Manhattan.

Now if you look at Obama's Solyndra investment--(cough-cough) he did create 1000 jobs at a cost of 5.6 MILLION dollars per job--that are now GONE--because the company went belly-up--costing the taxpayers of this country 535 MILLION dollars.

Knowing that the wealthy in this country account for 37% of the spending in it--means that they are a major source of economic activity--aka stimulating the economy--without costing any of us a DIME.

So who do you trust with this money? Barack Obama with more Solyndra type investments--or the rich dude who is spreading his money through-out the economy. Me--I'll take the rich dude.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!